|
|
Post by user9327 on Dec 8, 2009 22:16:24 GMT -5
yea man but I'm still waiting on your Danny Granger top 5 player in the NBA statement... they are 6-12 and before his injury this week he looked like nothing special at all. I'd be delighted for you to remind me where I said that. I definitely included him in my top 15 conversation (which I stand by) but definitely never top 5. And he's far from the problem in Indy. Other than him, do they have a single above-average (or even average?) starter at any other positions? I can make a very easy argument that they don't - not to mention they're horribly coached.. He can't stay healthy, and that's a shame because he's one of the best players in the league when he's right. And regarding the Blazers, injury prone is injury prone whether it's recurring or a series of "freak" occurrences. I dunno it was a few months ago when we were making lists and you had him higher than Durant and Carmello. You must remember that? You saying Danny Granger was a better player than Carmello. It's not a big deal, my Spurs prediction is looking awfully flat right now with Jefferson and all of their injuries. edit: but remember, we had that big convo about Granger just being a good player putting up numbers on a bad team? I said he was essentially doing what Kevin Durant was doing as a rookie and that it didn't mean he was an elite player. I think the whole basis for it was I said Carmello was arguably a top 3 player now and you claimed Granger was better than him. I'm not calling you out, just saying, it's interesting to watch how these things pan out. |
|
|
|
Post by Cult Member BriGuy on Dec 8, 2009 22:17:41 GMT -5
Ugh the Bulls better not lose to the Nets.
Down by 1 with 2:30 left.
|
|
|
|
Post by user9327 on Dec 8, 2009 22:19:51 GMT -5
Ugh the Bulls better not lose to the Nets. Down by 1 with 2:30 left. I was watching a bit of that, the Bulls were taking some bad shots when I was watching. |
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Dec 8, 2009 23:04:27 GMT -5
And regarding the Blazers, injury prone is injury prone whether it's recurring or a series of "freak" occurrences. Really, how so? Isn't being "prone" to something mean there is a liklihood of something to occur? So if Rudy is "prone" to injury because Ariza sent him to the ground I should expect that to happen to him again? Webster - 1 injury, stress fracture Rudy - 1 injury - sciatic problem as a result of a flagrant foul Batum - 1 injury, shoulder got banged up during a game. Outlaw - 1 injury, stress fracture Oden - too many to count. Blake - banged up his shoulder once, is fine now. Andre Miller - Is never hurt. It boggles my mind how many games he's played and has never been hurt. LA - Played 81 games last year Pryzbilla - has had typical big man stuff but played all 82 games last year. Roy - Misses the occasional game but nothing that has ever kept him from being productive. Bayless - nothing. Outside of Oden, I don't see anything that makes me think "boy these guys are injury prone" because there's nothing reccuring. Every team has injuries, this team as a whole has actually had very few, they just had them all at one time. Again, they were one of the healthiest teams in the league last season so how is the Blazers injury proned? If these guys kept pulling hamstrings, spraining ankles, tweaking wrists, ect., and it kept them off the floor at that point I would say such and such is prone to injury..but one  ing injury doesn't make you suddenly prone to injury. And a TEAM being prone to injury makes even less sense...what are they hexed? You didn't back up your statement the first time and now you want to brag and pat youself on the back because a few guys went down for the first time? Who are you...Barry Horowitz? Seriously, please explain to me what makes them injury prone? |
|
|
|
Post by user9327 on Dec 9, 2009 0:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Dec 9, 2009 3:58:03 GMT -5
How is the team injury prone, because they had a few injuries? Give me a team who's players had absolutely zero games missed because they didn't have injuries? Night in and night out somebody is hurt or somebody is questionable somehwere in the league. If you want to look at it that way the ENTIRE league is injury prone then. That list was not inaccurate. Rudy Fernandez missed a whopping 4 games last year and the sprained ankle wasn't apart of that becase that was preseason. The only time he missed games was the night when he went flying to the ground and on his way to the hospital. This surgery was a direct result of that injury. Yep, LA's profile showd he played 81 games last year. You're not gonna find too many players profiles that doesn't bring up a minor stuff that leaves them "questionable" for the following game and like most players LA plays through it. Roy missed 4 games, again nothing significant or out of the ordinary for the NBA. The article you showed me was almost two years old. Look at D-Wade and how he plays and how much time he's missed because of this. Roy plays a similar way, he drives to the basket a lot and takes a lot of fouls. When you play that hard you get banged up and miss some games but he's productivity has never suffered from the few Roy has missed. Webster missed the whole year, but that's one injury. Are the Mavericks injury prone because Howard and Terry have missed time? What about the Magic? Jameer Nelson has been hurt twice? Last year Hedo missed time, Pietrus missed a bunch of games and so on. Or the Lakers because Bynum, Walton, Farmar and Gasol have missed time? Spurs, Celtics, Jazz, Pistons and on and on and on and on. Look this is what's happening as we speak in the league. There's injuries on almost every team and as the year rolls on every team will have a guy end up on this list. www.nba.com/fantasy/fantasy_playerinjury.jspYou can go round the mulberry bush with every team and injuries. Collectivley, the Blazers haven't had a lot of injuries, that is, no more than any other team has and actually by the numbers they were one of the healthiest last year. How can one of the healthiest teams be injury proned? One of their keys to last year's success was the fact that by and large they remained healthy. The Blazers injury problems have all hit them at once which is why it looks so bad but there was no recurring theme other than Oden when it came to injuries. Most of these guys are experiencing their first major injury that has led to significant time being missed Being injury prone is somebody like Oden, a guy who suffers mind boggling injuries that has kept him from playing the game. Likewise with Yao Ming, Jameer Nelson, Redd, etc., every time you turn your back they are hurt and missing time. It hasn't been that way with the Blazers at all, one injury doesn't make you injury prone. Have these not all been at once, nobody is saying anything about them being prone to injuries but because four to five guys have gone down in a month, they suddenly look like a team that's made of glass. |
|
|
|
Post by spreedom8 on Dec 9, 2009 7:14:57 GMT -5
You must remember that? You saying Danny Granger was a better player than Carmello. It's not a big deal, my Spurs prediction is looking awfully flat right now with Jefferson and all of their injuries. edit: but remember, we had that big convo about Granger just being a good player putting up numbers on a bad team? I said he was essentially doing what Kevin Durant was doing as a rookie and that it didn't mean he was an elite player. I think the whole basis for it was I said Carmello was arguably a top 3 player now and you claimed Granger was better than him. I'm not calling you out, just saying, it's interesting to watch how these things pan out. Look at them side by side... they're pretty comparable players. Melo is definitely a better scorer and slightly better in the assist category, but otherwise Granger is slightly better in every other significant statistic, and that's not even including the fact that he's a better defensive player than Melo. I agree that Melo is having a better season so far, but his 30-year-old teammate Billups is also hands down better than anyone Granger has ever played with. And I still don't buy the "putting up numbers on a bad team" because it's not like Granger is just chucking the ball and trying to rack up individual numbers. If anything, it's tougher to score when you're on such a bad team because other teams gameplan specifically to stop you. And Quanthor... I believe I said wait and see with this season (after you proved me "wrong" in your words) and I was right. If it's not Roy missing time, it's Outlaw, or Webster, or Rudy, or Batum. And it pretty much goes without saying that Oden is an enormous draft bust if he can't stay healthy and contribute at least at the level he was at the beginning of this year before he ends his tenure with the Blazers. And other teams do have injury concerns as well, I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean the Blazers haven't consistently have at least one or two of their key swingmen on the shelf at a time over the past two or three seasons, because they have. And it's a shame. My Mavericks have had injuries to Howard and Thomas so far this year. |
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Dec 9, 2009 12:54:51 GMT -5
With the Blazers injuries though, it's a different guy every time. The only player on the team who's had any consistent history of missing time is Oden. That's definition of being "PRONE" to injury. Outlaw, Batum and Rudy all went down at the same time for the first time, so there's no correlation there. If they come back and are out again with something else then that can be used as a basis for that argument. You can't call a guy injury prone for having one injury.
Is the team injury prone? That doesn't make any sense, I don't believe in curses or hexes, especially when all 30 teams have struggled with injuries - look at the link, that's just right now. The clubs that minimize the injuries(depending on talent) usually go the farthest. That's why Portland had such great success last year, they had injuries yes, but overall compared to the other 29 teams they were in good shape. There are players who are prone to getting hurt, and on Portland the only that fits that bill is Oden.
You provide me with a team that hasn't had injuries because I'd love to see it.
-
FYI, there is nothing more deceiving in sports than NBA stats. Staticitcally speaking, Z-Bo is a top fifteen player, but we all know that's not the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by user9327 on Dec 9, 2009 19:23:05 GMT -5
i can't even read this thread.
This is absurd, seriously. Get over your bias and defense of your opinions that do not equate to reality.
Danny Granger, a better player, STILL, than Carmelo Anthony? Am I really even reading this? This opinion ACTUALLY EXISTS!? After the year Danny Granger has been having, and the astronomical year Carmelo has been having in terms of carrying over his playoff production. Carmelo Anthony doesn't play defense either apparently? Absurd.
Carmelo is arguably the best player in the NBA right now, if not top 2, in terms of this season. But Danny Granger is better? Is it his 6-12 record or his numbers dropping off from last year? Am I missing something?
Let me put it as clear as I absolutely can: Danny Granger has done NOTHING in this league. NOTHING. Carmelo is in the midst of an MVP season directly after a trip to the Western Conference Finals.
Discounting reality, that the Blazers have been an injury prone team? A WELL FREAKING PUBLICIZED INJURY PRONE TEAM OVER THE LAST 14 MONTHS OR SO. Thinking we are foolish enough to believe your hometown rant as opposed to just the reality that the Blazers have been injury prone over the last two current seasons? Like we're going to say, "oh yea Quanthor must be right, TNT's crew and ESPN from last year must have been reporting nonsense. Calling them injury prone is just out of line!"
Especially after you post a list that OMITS LAMARCUS ALDRIDGE in the first place and is filled with inaccuracies!?!? Can I just die now, in terms of my WF life?
Straight up discrediting reality and facts for the sake of your own bias and defensive stance over your opinions.
Guys seriously, it's ridiculous. It doesn't do us any favors.
If this madness doesn't stop I'm coming in here saying LeBron is still the best current player this season based off of my bias. Because, he's not. He's been a let down, he's pretty much going through the motions and Cleveland doesn't appear to have "it" anymore. Greatly in part due to their leader, LeBron.
Or I'll go on a rant about why the Knicks spent money well over the last 9 years, it was just the way you guys talk about it and how things turned out that make them look like idiots, but they're really not, because the media and your opinions based off logic and facts are wrong, and I'm right, because I'm not a homer either, and my list with obvious, blatant flaws shouldn't discredit my argument from the start.
There's no bias in anything I've said here. I have no vested interest in Danny freakin Granger (lol) or the Portland Trailblazers.
These claims didn't pan out, just like my Richard Jefferson being a great fit for the Spurs hasn't. Big deal. Doesn't mean we should be discrediting guys like Carmelo Anthony in the midst of their MVP season. I mean really do you hear yourself? Why? Why would you do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by user9327 on Dec 9, 2009 19:29:49 GMT -5
and before there is response defending these opinions some more I'd just like to restate two things:
You left Lamarcus Aldridge off of your initial list while trying to shun him for saying the Blazers are injury prone... you left Lamarcus freaking Aldridge off your list!?!?
Danny Granger was pumped up as the next coming, last Summer, and you put your name on his as a top player in this league. This year he's been nothing of the sort, simple. He's still done nothing, his numbers are dropping overall and Carmelo is having an MVP year after a conference finals run.
If the both of you are really still defending this crap when I get back, I give up on you. That's not some furious insult or statement to make you mad. It makes me sad, that people really think they are so much smarter or more right than another that they'd compromise their own intelligence to defend an opinion that's not panning out.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreedom8 on Dec 9, 2009 19:30:09 GMT -5
Where did I just say Granger was better than Melo? Going into this season, yes I did feel that he had a much better overall game and that outside of scoring and assisting he has better numbers across the board. But you also must have missed where I said Melo is having a better year. But I definitely agree that Melo is having a better season overall due to the fact that he's on a better team. Show me where I said anything that is even close to different from that. But I also think if you swapped Granger and Melo, the Pacers would still stink and the Nuggets would still be great.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreedom8 on Dec 9, 2009 19:32:37 GMT -5
And BTW, what's even worse than either of our biases is the fact that you write epic 500-word responses to our opinions by calling us out of touch with reality when in fact you show just as much if not more bias when talking about the Knicks and what you think they're going to accomplish this offseason. Man, you're really just continuing to be a detriment to this entire thread in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Dec 9, 2009 20:28:41 GMT -5
You left Lamarcus Aldridge off of your initial list while trying to shun him for saying the Blazers are injury prone... you left Lamarcus freaking Aldridge off your list!?!? Maybe that's because he's missed 7 games in two seasons which is less games than Carmelo Anthony has missed and nobody is calling him injury prone. I don't know about you, but I'll seven games being missed in two seasons from any player in the league. Sorry, but I don't consider that injury prone and if that's injury prone to you than every NBA player is. Players get hurt, it's a part of the game and if they don't ever experience anything they're likely sitting on the bench or aren't playing hard enough. I'd still like someone to give me a team that hasn't suffered injuries in the past two/three years because as far as I know they all have. |
|
|
|
Post by user9327 on Dec 10, 2009 1:15:12 GMT -5
Where did I just say Granger was better than Melo? Going into this season, yes I did feel that he had a much better overall game and that outside of scoring and assisting he has better numbers across the board. But you also must have missed where I said Melo is having a better year. But I definitely agree that Melo is having a better season overall due to the fact that he's on a better team. Show me where I said anything that is even close to different from that. But I also think if you swapped Granger and Melo, the Pacers would still stink and the Nuggets would still be great. From post 939 forward you not only state in a list that he is better but you go on to debate me and all this rah rah crap that you are denying now and will probably continue to post back telling me I'm still wrong even and twist reality around. My friend, you are a liar. I will not even further acknowledge your attempts to throw dirt on my face and make up crap about me in this thread about me being biased about the Knicks. I'm simply excited and discussing possibilities and things that look probable? That's detrimental to this thread? But your lying and apparent borderline bullying of your opinion are not? I've cleaned up my act since last season, almost squeeky clean. Maybe I wasn't the entire problem...? Maybe you just HAVE to be right, every time... or you can't be happy? |
|
|
|
Post by Hollywood Asia on Dec 10, 2009 10:41:17 GMT -5
Suck it Cavs
|
|
|
|
Post by abyss on Dec 10, 2009 10:43:02 GMT -5
The 76ers are so bad, it's frustrating. They have lost 11 in a row and are a few games behind the Knicks of all teams. AI is struggling so far, but I'm willing to give him time. Andre Iguodala is a really frustrating player. He always shoots it down the stretch and always misses. Like last night, he missed a wide-open 3 at the end. After Iverson tied up the game, he didn't get another shot. Ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreedom8 on Dec 10, 2009 11:16:22 GMT -5
wfigs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sports&action=display&thread=135980&page=47From post 939 forward you not only state in a list that he is better but you go on to debate me and all this rah rah crap that you are denying now and will probably continue to post back telling me I'm still wrong even and twist reality around. My friend, you are a liar. I will not even further acknowledge your attempts to throw dirt on my face and make up crap about me in this thread about me being biased about the Knicks. I'm simply excited and discussing possibilities and things that look probable? That's detrimental to this thread? But your lying and apparent borderline bullying of your opinion are not? I've cleaned up my act since last season, almost squeeky clean. Maybe I wasn't the entire problem...? Maybe you just HAVE to be right, every time... or you can't be happy? You're not even worth arguing with, especially since you obviously didn't read my last post on the matter. Moving on! |
|
|
|
Post by spreedom8 on Dec 10, 2009 11:17:12 GMT -5
The 76ers are so bad, it's frustrating. They have lost 11 in a row and are a few games behind the Knicks of all teams. AI is struggling so far, but I'm willing to give him time. Andre Iguodala is a really frustrating player. He always shoots it down the stretch and always misses. Like last night, he missed a wide-open 3 at the end. After Iverson tied up the game, he didn't get another shot. Ugh. Iverson is trying to get his, and that's hurting his team. What else is new? |
|
|
|
Post by spreedom8 on Dec 10, 2009 13:56:04 GMT -5
Studly defensive effort by the Lakers last night... held the Jazz to 2-18 shooting with 0 assists and 9 TOs... 6 points total for the quarter. That's some good D. 10 in a row.
|
|
|
|
Post by BV on Dec 10, 2009 16:22:38 GMT -5
The 76ers are so bad, it's frustrating. They have lost 11 in a row and are a few games behind the Knicks of all teams. AI is struggling so far, but I'm willing to give him time. Andre Iguodala is a really frustrating player. He always shoots it down the stretch and always misses. Like last night, he missed a wide-open 3 at the end. After Iverson tied up the game, he didn't get another shot. Ugh. Iverson is trying to get his, and that's hurting his team. What else is new? Iverson took only ten shots last night in the loss.. |
|
